The intoxication defense seemed like a pathetic excuse in this case - as it is in most if not all cases.

The legal theory is that the intoxication affects the judgment of the killer, preventing him or her from forming the "intent" required for a first-degree murder conviction.

But in this case, the defendant reloaded a gun after shooting Officer Grove, then shot him again.

That's pretty clearly intent. His intent, as was acknowledged in court, was not to go back to prison for possessing a gun as a convicted felon.

The intoxication defense rarely sways juries - and rightly so. First, a defendant admits that he or she got so drunk or high that judgment was badly impaired (which a jury interprets as complete irresponsibility, especially if DUI is involved, as it was in this case).

Advertisement

Then, the defendant argues that the underlying irresponsibility excuses him or her from accountability for premeditated killing.

Essentially: I was so irresponsible that I can't be held responsible.

Juries just don't want to hear that.

It's something to think about before abusing alcohol or drugs.

Reckless endangerment: Speaking of things that can go awry when alcohol is involved: Consider the case of Michael Robert McDanel.

In July 2003, the Dallastown man, then a Baltimore City Police Officer, reportedly drank 15 beers before going to a bar in the borough, then drank three more beers and two shots at the bar. He was asked to leave after he "hit on" and insulted two female patrons, according to testimony. Then he reportedly pulled a gun on the bartender in the vestibule and threatened to kill him. A scuffle ensued and a bullet was fired into a vestibule sign.

Thank goodness, no one was hurt.

Mr. McDanel was convicted of reckless endangerment in 2004.

Not exactly what you would call responsible behavior by a sworn law enforcement officer.

He appealed his conviction all the way to the state Supreme Court - which declined to hear the case in August 2006.

Then, well, the case just sort of fell through the bureaucratic cracks. No one in the system realized he hadn't served his sentence - even after he pleaded guilty to DUI in December 2008 and served 72 hours in county prison.

Then officials were cleaning out old evidence in closed cases and discovered the oversight, and Mr. McDanel was ordered to serve the sentence.

It's about time he had to take responsibility for actions that intoxication likely contributed to but certainly does not excuse.